from E. Rusch, late first-class private, Cape Mounted Riflemen.

from Anna W. Herbert, widow of John Isaac Herbert, in his lifetime a Civil Servant.

for water drills to be hired out to farmers at the previous tariff of £2 per diem.

to amend the South Africa Defence Bill so as to omit the clauses providing for compulsory military service. (Three petitions.)

from D. G. Coetzee, gaoler, Richmond.

from H. W. Milner, pensioner, Transvaal Postal Department.

for water drills to be hired out to farmers at the previous tariff of £2 per diem. (Two petitions.)

for a railway from Klerksdorp via or west of Hartebeestfontein to Lichtenburg.

for a line of railway from Kroonstad to Klerksdorp and Lichtenburg.

from E. F. Hardiman, head laundress, Graham’s Town Asylum.

Report of Government Astronomer (Natal), 1909 ; regulations dealing with plague (Natal): regulations Public Health Amendment Act (Cape).

Award of arbitrator in matter of southern boundary, territory of Walfish Bay.

Report of Commission to report on township at Nauwpoortsnek, Bethlehem, O.F.S.

This report was referred to the Select Committee on Townships.

First report Public Debt Commissioners.

Copy of pamphlet dealing with the South African ocean mail contract and freight arrangements.

explained that the object of the purchase was to consolidate the Groote Sohuur Estate, so as to round it off. The price was very reasonable, as on a previous occasion £75,000 was offered for the same estate, which the Government had now provisionally purchased for £25,000. He could recommend the adoption of the proposal to the House, because he believed it was in the public interest to consolidate the Groote Schuur Estate, and that it would be exceedingly advantageous to effect the purchase, as it would enhance the value of the Groote Schuur Estate enormously. He moved: This committee concurs in the proposed purchase by the Government of certain landed property as described in the schedule marked “A” annexed to certain provisional agreement dated 7th and 8th days of December, 1911, entered into between Edward Ridge Syfret, the duly authorised agent of George Frederick Arthur Pigot Moodie, and the Honourable Sir David Pieter de Villiers Graaff, Baronet, in his capacity as Minister of Public Works and as such representing the Government of the Union of South Africa, copy of which agreement was laid on the table of the House on the 2nd day of February 1912, for a sum not exceeding twenty-five thousand five hundred pounds sterling (£25,500), and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the aforesaid agreement.

said he had heard it whispered—he did not know with how much authority—that the object of the purchase was to create a residence for the High Commissioner, but he understood that already there was an estate at Newlands which had been bought for that purpose. He also understood that a new building was contemplated on the ground proposed to be purchased, the cost of the building to be £40,000. He understood the object was to do away with the Governor-General’s residence in the Gardens and turn it into a picture gallery or something of the sort. In the absence of fuller details he thought the matter should stand over.

No, no.

said that he must really ask for fuller information from the Minister.

said he had given the facts to the House as he knew them. He did not know that Government House was to be built on that site, or that any site had been selected. It had been suggested that Government House should be built at Erinville ; for that there was a good deal to be said for and much more against. If the Government’s property was not utilised, perhaps it could be sold, and the amount placed against the cost of building. Rondebosch representations had been made that Government should purchase other ground near Erinville, but if that were done, Government would be embarking on a very dangerous undertaking, for if the other ground were purchased, the cost would be over £3,000. From every point of view, the proposition before the House was the best, and he added that before the site of Government House was decided upon, the matter would receive the very serious consideration of the Government. At all events, the proposition was excellent, and a valuable asset of the country would be enhanced by the acquisition of this ground.

said that if this ground, was not to be used for the erection of a residence for the Governor-General, he did not see the object of buying it. £25,000 might be a negligible amount in these flourishing days—(laughter)—but he remembered a day when it was a good deal of money. Here they had a case of a Minister who wanted ground to round off and so enlarge an estate, while the other day another Minister brought in a Bill to cut up estates for the purpose of closer settlement. He had understood that they were purchasing the ground so as to build a residence for the Governor-General. It did seem to him to be going too far to spend £25,000 in rounding off an estate.

said he did not think there was any suggestion that closer settlement should be carried out in the suburbs of Cape Town. The proposition before the House was exceedingly good business. He pointed out how the estate would depreciate in value did the Government not accept the offer, for the ground could be cut up into lots and sold by some enterprising person. From that point of view, it was sound business. If the proposition were not approved of there were others in the field who would come forward.

said he heartily endorsed the proposals and remarks of the Minister, and thought the Government was doing right. They had come to look upon the Groote Schuur Estate as a national asset, and it should not be spoiled. They were proud of it. He approved of the proposition before the House.

said he thought the Minister might explain the whole of the circumstances. If he (the speaker) voted, he would be voting on trust and in the dark.

explained that the Westbrooke Estate ran into the Groote Schuur Estate. There were servitudes on the latter which would be done away with by the acquisition of the former. They would also come into possession of valuable water rights. One of the principal roads ran through Westbrooke, and it was only by leave of the Westbrooke owners that it could be used.

was not satisfied with the Minister’s explanation. The Minister said it was possible that on that ground the Governor-General’s house would be built. But would not the ground be destined for university purposes, and would not that purchase be referred to hereafter as a reason for the building of a university in Cape Town?

could not understand the members from the Cape Province. They were always complaining that the money went north, and now that money was to be spent here, they had all sorts of difficulties.

said he wished to support the view expressed by the hon. member for Victoria West. The spending of £25,000 was totally unnecessary, as the estate was already rounded oft. If the late Cecil Rhodes had thought it not complete he would have finished the work before leaving it as a gift to the country.

said he would like to know, before voting, whether the property proposed to be purchased would become part of the estate open to the public or belong to the private property. It made a great difference whether they could go straight through with the road or whether they had to come down by the main road. He had been informed by those who were responsible for running a motor ’bus to Hout Bay that they had not received permission to pass through the Groote Schuur estate after going through the Newlands-avenue. He had always understood the place had been left for the pleasure and convenience of the public, and he thought this was the time to ask the question whether this property would become part of the public or private portion of the estate.

The motion was agreed to.

The motion was reported to the House and adopted.

pointed out to the House that the hon. Minister was on the point of answering his question when the motion was put, would he do so at the present stage?

in reply, said the road referred to was the road which runs through the property they were about to purchase. If the owners wished to close the road they could do so, and it was for this reason that it became essential the property should be purchased.

was proceeding to say that the hon. Minister had not answered the main point of his question when

ruled the hon. member out of order.

said he would suggest that the Hon. the Minister of the Interior should accept the motion, because if it did nothing else it would convince the public or one of two things. Either that the immigration laws had been so administered that a large section of the public would not agree with them, or that it would appear to the public that he was afraid to have the affairs of the Department investigated. It appeared to him (the hon. member) to be conclusive proof that there was a great deal going on in the Department which should not be going on. He would like to supplement the instances he had mentioned with a few others from his own experience. There was one which had occurred at Benoni where a gentleman, who had a brother arrived in Cape Town but who was refused entry, could get no reason for his being stopped. He (the hon. member) was asked to take the matter up, and he wired to the Immigration Officer in Cape Town, and the reply sent showed what unnecessary obstacles were placed in the way, and how much discourtesy was meted out to the public. The reply was: “Have sent all particulars to the Chief Immigration Officer at Pretoria, please inquire there.” Naturally, in view of the fact that the individual was stopped at the port of entry it might have been expected they would have been able to get some information first hand. They went to Pretoria, where the Immigration Officer was interviewed. He politely informed them that he had no information respecting the case. This might have been due to them having over-run the letter. The point he wished to make, was that it was quite easy for the Immigration Officer in Gape Town to wire the particulars to him (Mr. Madeley) first hand. He went to the office of the Minister, but found that the Minister was not in. Eventually, he arranged with the private secretary of the Minister to wire or write to him immediately the information came to hand, and about four or five in the afternoon he received information to the effect that they had accepted this immigrant, that he was to come through, and the reason that he had been detained at Cape Town was that he looked somewhat dull. (Laughter.) Then there was another case in which he was asked to intervene. An immigrant had been stopped who was coming out to a firm of wood merchants in Benoni. The firm were going to employ him. He had a relative already working for the firm. This was on a Saturday afternoon, and there was great danger of the immigrant being deported on the Sunday. In the evening, after much trouble, he succeeded in communicating with the Minister by telephone, and informed him that the firm guaranteed to give this man work. The Minister said, if that were so, there would be no objection to the man coming in. The man was allowed to come in and he started work. The great point of these two instances was that there was so much difficulty put in the way. He maintained that the law was stretched to prevent men from coming into the country. He had another point, of an opposite nature. There should be a public inquiry, so that the public would know the whole of the circumstances surrounding the maladministration of the immigration laws at the time of the printers’ strike in Cape Town. (Hear, hear.) In this case it was exceedingly easy for a crowd of individuals to come in, individuals who might be perfectly good physically and mentally sound, but at the same time it was inimical to the interests of this country. He did not know whether it was a matter of law, but it was certainly a matter of custom that no individual was allowed on one of the mail steamers or any other steamer in the Bay until the Immigration Officer’s flag was down. In the case under review, not only were individuals allowed to board the ship in the Bay, but a similar permission to board was not granted to other individuals keenly interested in the circumstances. The representatives of the Master Printers’ Association of Cape Town were not only allowed to go on board, but they were allowed to take a J.P. with them, and the crux of the whole matter was this, that these men, brought out by the Master Printers’ Association in order to break a strike in Cape Town, did not know the circumstances which they were coming to when they came here. Some of them had since admitted that they hardly realised that there was a strike on at all. The masters’ representatives were allowed to take a J.P. with them and make these poor, unfortunate men sign contracts for a number of years. These men, if they had not signed those contracts, would have had to go back. In all these cases the men was what was known as “down on their bean ends.” The next portion of his narrative, Mr. Madeley went on to say, involved a charge of discourtesy. Together with the representative of the Typographical Union, he visited the Chief Immigration Officer in Cape Town, and pointed out to him that the master printers were being allowed to go on the boats, and the men, who were very keenly interested, whose bread and butter were involved and possibly the lives of their wives and children, were not allowed to go on nor send representatives, in order to explain their side of the case before these men were induced to sign their contracts. He then said: “We cannot possibly allow representatives of the men to go on.” They then replied: “You have no right to allow the master printers to go on.” In the course of the discussion he (Mr. Madeley) asked this man whether he was acting on his own initiative in this matter, or whether he was acting under orders from the Minister of the Interior. He said to him (Mr. Madeley): “Don’t be a fool.” (Laughter.)

Hear, hear.

I would not advise the right hon. gentleman to visit the Chief Immigration Officer in Cape Town.

I have met him already. (Laughter.)

said that he did not suppose the Immigration Officer had used the tape measure upon him. He admitted him into this country in 1903, when he arrived here. It was lucky for De Beers, because he went there to work.

I think that is the worst charge made against them. (Laughter.)

said that, whether they were right or wrong, the Immigration Department had no right to take sides in a fight of this description. (Hear, hear.) He contended most emphatically that they were taking sides. He wired to the Minister. The reply was “Surely, the masters, who have engaged these men at home, have a right to go on board and see them.” They were not cattle ; they were sentient beings. (A laugh.) The point was that, from the Minister down to the Chief Immigration Officer, the whole of the Department was being utilised to assist the master printers to beat the men. He now had to touch upon another matter that might not be quite relevant. The master printers sued their employees for the return of sums of money which they had lent to them, and also for the return of their passages out to South Africa from England and elsewhere. In one particular case judgment was given against a man sued. Immediately judgment was given, or within an hour of judgment being given, the bailiffs were in that man’s house. He had a wife in a delicate condition.

said he must draw the hon. member’s attention to the question before the House. (Hear, hear.)

I want to show how the maladministration of this Act acts against the interests of the public of this country. If you rule that out, I will leave it.

I do not see how it has anything to do with immigration.

Very well, sir. Proceeding, he said there was no doubt that the instances quoted show that it was very unwise to place autocratic powers like these in the hands of an official.

said that he wanted to support the motion, and was in favour of an inquiry being held. He wished to say, however, that in the course of the debate the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson) had stated, with regard to the importation of men in connection with the printers’ strike, that he had been informed that the men had been informed that unless they signed certain papers which the representatives of the masters had with them, they would not be allowed to land. He (Mr. Jagger) had made some inquiries into the matter and had found that that statement was not correct. What had been done was to reassure the men on board—to put a full statement before them and assure them that they would receive protection on shore: but no papers at all had been put before them to sign.

I never used the words which have been put into my mouth by the newspapers. I said that the men were practically coerced into signing an agreement, by reason of the fact that the agreements were placed in front of them ; and they knew only too well that if they did not sign this agreement they would not be allowed to land.

said that he did not remember the exact words used by the hon. member, but he had taken down the words from the report appearing in the newspapers, and he simply wanted to show that that statement was not correct. In conclusion, he said that an inquiry could do no harm, and certainly, to his mind, it was required.

said that the discussion on the motion had taken some considerable time, and some importance seemed to be attached to it, so that he hoped the House would bear with him if he discussed some of the cases brought forward, and the facts which had been placed before the House, in some detail. He thought that he might assume at the start that unless a strong prima facie case was made out for such an inquiry, the House would not agree to it, because that procedure of appointing a Select Committee was an expensive one and should only be set in motion in cases of importance—where the cases were strong and numerous. What were the charges on which the hon. member wished to base his inquiry? The most important charge was that brought up by the hon. member who brought forward the motion (Mr. Sampson) and by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley), which had to do with the unfortunate printers’ strike, which happened some time ago. I know a good deal about this matter, and throughout that business I was fairly conversant with every stage of it ; and certainly so far as that business was concerned, if any blame attaches, it is not to the Immigration Officer, but to myself. The position in regard to the printers’ strike was this: The strike was taking place in Cape Town, and men were arriving in Cape Town in order to take the place of the strikers. Pressure was brought to bear on me at the time, in some way or other, to stop these men from Landing. Well, my sympathy was very largely with the strikers —(Labour cheers)—on that occasion, and I think it is a reprehensible thing in a dispute of that sort that forces should be brought from other centres ; but I was entirely helpless, and the Immigration Laws do not allow me to stop, into this country, the entry of these men—men who were educated, had means, and were in good health. I could not prevent them from landing. The charge is that favouritism was brought into the matter of their landing, and that while the employers were enabled to get into touch with these men at an early hour, the strikers, who also wanted to get into touch with them, could not do so. The facts are these: The Chief Immigration Officer in Cape Town had information that it was most important to have those hands, who had come from England, landed before the other passengers. The strikers had massed in great force at the Docks, and the fear was entertained that that mass of strikers would interfere with the landing of the other passengers, and the police thought that it was advisable to have these men landed first. But it was at the incidence and the request of the police that some representatives of the employers went on board in order to reassure these men, as the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) has indicated. From the statement which the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) has made, that contracts were signed on board and that a J.P. had been taken on board with the representative of the employers, I am assured—and I accept the assurance given to me—that there is not a tittle of proof of that charge. (Hear, hear.) The Immigration Officer—and I may assure the hon. member that he is quite a minor official in Cape Town, and has to take instructions from many authorities here—was quite right in accepting the advice of the police and acquiescing in it. I do not think there is any blame in that matter, and if he had not accepted the advice of the police, I think he might have rendered himself responsible for a serious state of affairs, and I think he was only doing this duty in the ordinary course of affairs. As to the list of charges brought up by the hon. and learned member for Gape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), he (General Smuts) wanted to take the House very (briefly over these nine cases. He wanted to show the House how entirely unfounded and unreasonable these charges were. As to the case of Shur, the facts were these: Shur landed here and wanted to go to Rhodesia, and in all these cases the Rhodesian Government was communicated with, and a telegram was received from the latter: “Not prepared to admit Shur to Southern Rhodesia.” The hon. member had brought the House under the impression that the actual permit had arrived from Rhodesia. Ample time had been given to Shur, and when he had returned with the steamer, which had been up the coast and back, that final bar against the acceptance of Shur had arrived. He thought that disposed of the case in the most conclusive manner. He then came to the case of what the hon. member had called the “two Free Staters,” Vorster and Miss McEwen. He was sorry that these names had been mentioned by the hon. member, but as they had been mentioned he was entitled to make use of any facts he could for the defence. The hon. member had said that these two people were Free Staters who had gone to Europe on a bioscope expedition to purchase films, and that the Immigration Officer had set himself up as a censor morum, and that a whole course of illegal proceedings had been entered upon. The facts were, briefly, that when they arrived in Cape Town a declaration had to be made in the ordinary way, as had to be made by all other immigrants. The man made a declaration that he was married to Miss McEwen—(laughter)—and the latter, on the other hand, had made an affidavit that she was not married. (Laughter (Mr. ALEXANDER: "They were South Africans.”) As a result of that discrepancy, the Immigration Officer was put on his caution and had to look into the case more carefully ; he had not to look at the morals of these people, but here was a case of deliberate perjury—(Mr. ALEXANDER: "Were they prosecuted for perjury?”)—on the part of these individuals. She gave an address of a sister at Johannesburg, but the supposed sister denied all knowledge of her, but luckily for her it was found in other ways that she was a South African, and the next day she was let go. But Vorster had committed perjury, and had given no details whatever which could be followed up. The Immigration Officer owed a duty to the country in enforcing the regulations. (Cheers.) The hon. member had stated that that official tried to demand a declaration from Vorster to the effect that he (Vorster) knew that he would not be debarred from entering the country. He (General Smuts) could only accept the assurance of the officer that no such declaration was ever asked for.

Did you pay all their costs?

said that after a great deal of police inquiry they found out that Vorster, although he had misled the officials all through, was correct in the statement that he was born in South Africa, and that being so, they were wrong in trying to bar his entry into this country, and the department thought it right to pay such costs as had been incurred. The hon. member (Mr. Alexander) said some strange cases had occurred. In one case, he stated a woman with her three children was prevented from joining her husband at Germisten, because there was something wrong with the eyes of one of her children. He (General Smuts) was under the impression that this was a trumpery case, where the child squinted. He would not venture to read the Medical Officer’s report, but if the hon. member wished to see it, he was prepared to show it to him. The Immigration Officer thought it his duty to place these children in a private boarding-house in Cape Town, for they seemed to be suffering from some contagious disease. The husband came down, and ultimately the wife and her children were allowed to proceed. But, on the medical examination, the Immigration Officer absolutely did his duty in preventing the immediate entry of these people. The hon. member had stated that there also arrived by the same ship—the Gaika—a young man who had been here three years ago, but although he was identified by a well-known citizen, he had to go back. He (General Smuts) thought the hon. member was drawing on his imagination, for no person who came out by the Gaika was refused admission. Then the hon. member (Mr. Alexander) had stated that a Miss Kaufman, who had £3,000, had been sent back because she was a cripple. She gave her age as 22. She was of the poorest physical type, a hopeless cripple, and a humpback, and altogether as pitiable a specimen of humanity as one could find. However, her father was communicated with, and she was allowed to proceed out of sheer humanity. There were some other cases which the hon. member had mentioned. He had stated that the immigration authorities had urged the most ridiculous thing in the case of a boy of eleven, who wrote three languages, but unfortunately had a split lip, and on that account he had to go. The only case the department could trace in the records was that of a youth who had a cleft palate, in regard to whom permission to proceed up-country was delayed in order to make inquiries. In another case the hon. member had stated that a woman was stopped because one of her children was pale. But there was no such case on record. The hon. member had stated that a boy who arrived by the Gloucester Castle was also sent away. No boy arriving by that ship was sent back, but a man was. There remained the case of Berman. The hon. member had stated that in this instance the authorities applied the methods of Lombroso, and the result was that Berman was debarred from entering the country. The impression he (General Smuts) was under in listening to the statement was that Berman was not allowed to enter the country because of his baldness—(laughter) —and other physical defects.

That is the Government affidavit.

said that in 1909 a man called Jekel Shudelwitz applied to enter the country, but he was barred. Last year he repeated his attempt, but this time under the name of Berman. He was found to be illiterate, and again prohibited. Subsequent to his being prohibited, it was found that he was Shudelwitz, but he escaped from the ship. However, he was recaptured, and ultimately he came before the Court, which described him as a man of exceedingly low intelligence as well as of no education, adding that it would be going beyond the law to make an order for his admission. The Court found that on the education test he was properly prevented from entering the country. The hon. member was counsel for Berman. He (General Smuts) could not prevent him from bringing to the notice of the House cases in which he had been engaged as counsel. But the House was entitled, when the hon. member did that, to look for a full and complete disclosure of the facts. (Cheers.)

I read the full affidavit put in by the Medical Officer of Health on behalf of the Government. I withheld no facts from the House, either then or at any time.

said it then seemed to the House that the restriction was decided upon on the grounds alleged in the affidavit, but it now appeared that the affidavit had nothing to do with the decision of the Court. (Cheers.) He thought the House was entitled, when the hon. member made a statement of facts, which must have been peculiarly in his knowledge, that it should have the full facts from him. (Cheers.) The hon. member for Springs had mentioned two cases in which he was put to some personal inconvenience, because of delays in the Immigration Department. In those cases there was not the least attempt to restrict the people from landing, but some delay occurred because inquiries were made. When these delays arose, the people concerned, in fear that they would be restricted, made piteous appeals all over the country to their friends. Continuing, he said he did not think a case had been made out for inquiry in this matter. A few years ago a Select Committee of the Cape Legislative Council con sidered the question, and the result of the inquiry was to vindicate the Immigration Officer. If the officer had been wrong in this case, he (the Minister) had no reason for standing by him. Although he (the Minister) had closely scrutinised his administration he had found that the officer had been trying to do his best in a fair and impartial manner. He pointed out that last year alone the officer dealt with 36,000 cases, and out of that number only 171 were restricted, which hon. members would see was less than a half per cent. He had compared the figures with those of other countries, and found that the Cape compared most favourably. He thought that when an officer had to deal with so many cases it was only to be expected that in a small number of isolated cases objection would be taken to restrictions. In all the bad cases which had been quoted by the hon. member for the Castle Division he had shown that the responsible official was right, and therefore he thought he was right in saying that no case had been made out for inquiry.

expressed surprise at the objections raised by the Minister against the proposal that a Select Committee should be appointed. He (the speaker) would have thought that such an inquiry would have been as much in the interests of the Minister and his department as in the interests of the general public, and hon. members in that House. If the Department was able to show such a clean sheet he would have thought that it would have courted such an inquiry. He could assure the House that there were a large number of members who had more serious complaints to bring against the Department. Now, the Minister of Railways told them the other day that hon. members should be sure of facts before they brought complaints to the House, and should get such matters investigated by Select Committees. It was for the reason that he wanted to be sure of his facts that he had applied to the House for a Select Committee. He pointed out that though the Minister had dealt with certain cases when the persons had been restricted, he did not go into cases where men had been detained. That was not a small matter ; it was a matter in which great hardship was entailed on certain individuals. The Minister had done little justice to a charge of partiality, which he (the speaker) had levelled against the Department. The Minister had told them that acting on the advice of the police—fancy listening to the advice of the police in a time of a strike! —they had allowed the agents of the employers to go on board. It had been said that this was the means of preventing a disturbance, but he (the speaker) said that if a disturbance had occurred, it would have been solely on that account. Had justice been done, and both sets of agents been allowed on board, there would have been no fear of a disturbance. The fact of allowing only one set of agents on board was just the thing likely to create trouble. So far as the composition of the committee was concerned, he was not wedded to the number of members, but he considered that it was a more representative committee than many appointed in that House.

The motion was put and declared negatived.

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result :

said he did not wish to add much to what had already been said by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. There were, however, some facts that had come to his knowledge which he would lay before the House. They had been asked to defer discussion on this subject because a report was expected from the Commission which had been considering this discontent. He would like to know how much longer they were to wait before the report was laid on the table. The delay was inconvenient, because had this been forthcoming there might have been no necessity to have brought this motion forward. Proceeding to cite instances of the discontent, the hon. member said a man named Lunnen had recently been dismissed, whose case he asked the Minister of Railways to seriously consider. This employee had been charged with stealing two bicycle tubes, but was acquitted. The railway official, however, said he preferred believing the evidence of the prosecution to that of the defence, and dismissed the man. Another man, Power, who was charged with embezzlement of Government moneys, was acquitted by the Court, but dismissed the service. Another case was that of the man Ritchie, who was charged with misconduct of a minor character in connection with a recent accident. This man had also been unfairly dismissed. This was unfair and unjust and un-British.

Be careful.

I don’t say they all are facts. (Ministerial laughter.) They have been furnished to me as such, and may be capable of explanation by the Minister. I wait for it. Proceeding, the hon. member said the case of a gateman named Nelson was one of particularly harsh treatment, who after 30 years’ service had been retrenched. He would like the Minister to tell them whether men dismissed from the service lost all right to the money they had paid into the superannuation fund?

called the hon. member to order. The question would come under the Superannuation Bill.

said he mentioned these matters because it was to the interest of the country that these things should come out op the floor of the House, and if there was an explanation the hon. Minister would no doubt give it. He would like to further know whether it was within the knowledge of the hon. Minister that, at the White Labour Bureau in Johannesburg, the Government were asking for men at 3s. per day for the first six months, and 3s. 6d. per day for the second six months, and a daily rate of pay of 5s. afterwards. He would like an answer whether that was, or was not, correct, because the Minister had on the previous day stated that men began at 3s. 4d. a day, and were getting a rise at the end of the first month. There was another case in which a man named Zynstiey had applied to the Minister for redress, and the Minister had advised him to place his case before the local member of Parliament. (Laughter.) That was the sympathy the man got from the Minister. With regard to Trades Unions, he had to admit there was a large amount of intimidation taking place on the part of these unions. He cited the case of a non-union man who had through his mediation obtained employment with the “Leader” in Johannesburg, but was within 24 hours hounded out of it by the union. He would like the Government to recognise them so that the grievances of the men might reach the proper quarters not singly but as codified by these associations. He strongly objected to the time of the House being taken up with these discussions when such matters could so much better be conveyed through the medium of these institutions. He did not agree with the argument that the men should be obliged to join the unions, but he contended that it would be much better to recognise these unions. He thought it would be better for the Postmaster-General to recognise the men’s union.

said he was one of those who felt or rather regretted that this motion had not been allowed to stand down until the Grievances Commission had reported. Notice No. 7 issued some time ago caused among the Natal railwaymen a great deal of heartburning and disappointment, because they felt that it was unfair to deprive them of their political rights, which they had enjoyed for so many years. In Natal they had the Civil Servants, the monthly-paid men and the daily-paid men. He could not for the life of him see why a daily-paid man should be deprived of taking part in meetings or having anything to do with politics. There was no such rule in operation in regard to the employees of the Municipalities in Natal, and there had been no cause for complaint. The Municipalities trusted the men. He thought if the Government trusted the men there would be no difficulty. Mr. Henwood proceeded to urge that the Government would be wise in withdrawing piecework. In reference to the payment of 3s. 6d. a day to white employees on the railways, he considered that that was not a fair living wage and that the minimum pay should be raised to 6s. The Government, he submitted, should be model aployers and raise the men’s wages to a living standard.

said that he intended to support the motion, but he must say that his reason for doing so was that he believed there were many cases which required redress among the employees on the railways, especially among the lower grades. He could not, however, help feeling that this was not an opportune time to bring forward this motion, and he felt that it was likely to do far more harm than good. The Grievances Commission was still sitting, and they had not yet got its report. There were undoubtedly individual grievances in the service, though not, as a whole, he thought, so great as the hon. member would like to make out. He thought that, when the hon. member talked about a strike he had absolutely mistaken the feeling of the men. The men had grievances, but they wished to have them redressed, if possible, in a legitimate way. It was physically impossible for the Minister to give his personal attention to every grievance that existed. What the men wanted at the present moment was somebody between themselves and the Minister and the head of the Department. It had been suggested that a railway complaint board should be appointed. In that way individual grievances could be placed before this board and they would get fair hearing and due consideration. He was in hopes, and he thought the employees were in hopes, that, after laying their grievances before the Commission, when the report of the Commission was issued, it would be found to deal with many of the existing grievances.

said that the Minister, when replying to the debate, waxed very indignant at their temerity in asking the House to affirm such a motion as this on ex parte statements before they heard the other side. The Minister, they knew, was an expert in trying to get hon. members to take just that view which he himself desired them to take, entirely irrespective of the facts and of the main gravamen of the charge, without having very much regard to the grounds upon which the charge was based. The charge he brought was based on no ex parte statement, except one. Was the issue of Circular No. 7 in question? The hon. member went on to say that so long as the present state of autocracy remained on the railways there would be grievances, whether they had a Commission or not. Hon. members hearing the speech of the hon. Minister might be under the impression that it was their (the Labour party’s) idea that every railway man must take a part in politics ; but it could be left to them whether they should take a part or not, and they should be free to take a part, if they wished to, like any other people. He thought that the Minister’s reply on that point was, he would not say disingenuous, but failed to meet the charges made. As to the Natal Civil Servants, he did not think the Minister’s defence was admissible. In regard to the trip system, it was hardly sub judice, and the Minister knew all the facts of it without any inquiry being necessary. More evidence of the spirit actuating the Administration was in the Railway Bill, which had been discussed some time ago, and the provisions brought into it by the Select Committee in deference to the wishes of the men, had been ruled out. The Minister had also spoken as if they were striving to hound a certain man out of employment. The Minister had not informed the House that a certain civil action was pending against the man, and that ho had been given the employment which was so eagerly sought after by so many desirable persons, who certainly had a prior claim. He would leave alone the Minister’s defence of the 5s. rising to 5s. 6d. a day. He had said that there was gross misrepresentation, and that the rise was by sixpenny instalments, rising ultimately to the giddy heights of 5s. He wanted to point out to the Minister again, that on the principles he held dear of buying in the cheapest market, he could still, of course, get men at 3s. and 3s. 6d. a day, but on these principles it was a flagrant instance of inconsistency, because while men were forced to work for that amount the labour market was flooded with cheap labour. As to the “newspaper cutting which had come into the Minister’s hands at the psychological moment,” it seemed, from the reply of the Minister, that the men were perfectly contented, and that it was these “miserable labour agitators” who went about fomenting discontent. No doubt in the days when j the Israelites were in bondage they were, according to the then Minister of Bricks and Pyramids—(laughter)—perfectly contented until those “miserable agitators,” Moses and Aaron, went amongst them “fomenting discontent.” (Laughter.) The Minister’s statement that they (the Labour party) were more politicians than labourers, the hon. member referred to as a rather pitiful gibe, and asked whether the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson) would have to bring his little printing press along with him and work it in front of him in the House, or each of the other members of the Labour party have to bring their tools or implements. (Laughter.) What was the House? Was it a mothers’ party, or was it a place where politics were discussed? The gravamen of the Minister’s charge was that it was a case of politics with them, and not the real interest of the people themselves. He was surprised at that, as he thought the Minister was such a Liberal, but what he had charged them with had been said by his Tory predecessors for years past when anything was brought up that did not suit them. It was said that pressure was brought upon the railwaymen to join the society, but how much pressure was brought to bear not to make them join the society? (Hear, hear.) If a man did join he was, perhaps, for some inscrutable reason, removed to some inconvenient and out-of-the-way station. South Africa might be different from any other country in the world, but it was not different from all other countries, and the people who inhabited it were very like their brothers and cousine in other countries, and were just as keen on and would stand up for Trades Unionism and other principles as men in other countries would. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), after expressing his sympathy for the resolution, had made a most touching appeal —which only a heart of flint could have withstood—that it would be most, inopportune to press it to a division. The assurance that anything they might do might place the party of the hon. member in an awkward position was a matter which gave them the most acute pain. (Laughter.) If the hon. member meant to imply that the Minister was so benevolent that if they pressed that to a division he must cross the floor of the House, he said that though he (Sir Thomas Smartt) had chastised the railwaymen with whips, he now chastised them with scorpions. He thought that if the matter were pressed to a division the hon. member and his friends would be placed in not nearly as awkward a position as his own remarks had already placed him. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. Smartt) had stated that the motion would be harmful to the interests of the men concerned. Surely the motion was a most innocent one. On the following day they were to be asked to discuss a motion, of which notice had been given by the hon. member for Albany (Sir Starr Jameson), in which almost the precise words were used.

The hon. member must not anticipate discussion.

said he was very much disappointed. It seemed to him that the right hon. baronet and his friends were harking back to their habits of long ago, and he did not look forward to a great attack by the flower of knightly chivalry on the front Opposition benches. The Labour party did, somehow, act on what they conceived to be their duty in this matter. They believed on the facts they had brought before the House that there was a tendency to autocratic rule in the railway administration, and the only way to express their disapprobation was by voting for such a resolution as that. They wished to affirm that if they had the power they would remove the present administration, and for that reason they would ask for a division. (Hear, hear.)

said he was aware that he was taking a rather unusual course in speaking after the mover had replied, but in view of what the mover had said about the position of hon. members in that matter, he (Mr. Long) thought the House would agree with him if he explained to the hon. member for Jeppe, who had totally misunderstood what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had stated, the reason why they regarded the introduction of the motion as one detrimental to the best interests of the railwaymen. The hon. member for Jeppe had implied that the reason they took up that attitude was that his motion put hon. members on the Opposition side in an awkward position. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had expressed the views that he (Mr. Long) held on this matter. He quite failed to gather from the remarks of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that he was appealing to the hon. member for Jeppe to withdraw his motion because it put Opposition members in an awkward position. He (Mr. Long) did not agree that the motion put them in an awkward position, but it was against the best interests of the railway service. There was a clear distinction between a motion which questioned the action of the Government regarding its servants on matters of principle and matters of administrative detail. If hon. members thought that on a question of principle the Government was departing from the right principles in its treatment of public servants then he considered hon. members were perfectly justified in bringing such a matter of principle before the House. But the motion before the House read: “That this House views with concern the discontent of employees of the Department of Railways and Harbours with the conditions under which they work, and regrets that by its unsympathetic attitude towards the employees and the low standard of living forced on men in the lower grades of the service by insufficient pay, the administration has given cause for discontent among so important a body of public servants.” That was entirely a matter of administration, and there was not a word as to the principle which should be applied. The mover having deliberately challenged an expression of the views of hon. members might at least give him (Mr. Long) an opportunity of speaking. (Hear, hear). The motion concerned a matter of administrative detail on which the House gave an expression of opinion last session, and as a result a Commission was appointed, which was still sitting. That was the reason why the motion was not in the interest of the railway servants. The hon. members who sat on the cross benches had deliberately put the motion forward as a matter of class interest. The hon. member for Georgetown (Mr. Andrews) had said most deliberately that the railway servants and the workers generally could not expect anything from the Parliament of this country unless they sent their own representatives there. (Labour cheers.) That simply meant that an appeal was being made to a particular section of a particular class in this country to be convinced of the fact that their interests were not safe in the hands of hon. members. They who sat on that or the other side of the House claimed that they were just as good representatives, and, perhaps, better of the railway employees—(Ministerial and Opposition cheers)—as the Labour members were for the very reason that they did not regard themselves as representatives only of that class. On the whole the Government’s servants had been well treated, although there might be individual grievances, and that Parliament had done its duty towards its servants was a matter which he thought no one would dispute. But when it was a matter of administrative detail it became a question of playing up to the railway vote. (Cheers.) That, frankly, was the object of the motion. That was an undesirable thing, and if it were continued it would be greatly to the detriment of the railway servants. (Cheers.) The motion had been put forward, as the Minister of Railways very truly said, as a part of a propaganda to cause discontent among the railway servants. That was the reason why they, on the Opposition side of the House, believed the motion was really detrimental to the best interests of the railwaymen. (Hear, head.) Let him say to the hon. members on the cross benches that this playing up to the railway vote would in the end be very detrimental, not only to the railwaymen, but to all Government servants, because it was purely class representation, and deliberately intended to create class unrest. (Hear, hear.) That was a very dangerous thing, because directly they started to foment class discontent they consolidated against them the representatives of every other class. Continuing, the hon. member said there was a majority in that House which could pass a measure disenfranchising the Civil Servants of this country, as had been done in some other countries.

You daren’t do it.

I don’t want to do it. Surely the hon. member knows sufficient about political conditions to know that we don’t want to do it.

Hear, hear.

That is the danger, and I am warning them that it is against the interests of those they claim to represent.

No, no.

I am sorry hon. members on the cross benches have not listened to what I said.

Thank you.

The reason why we disapprove of this motion is that we believe it is against rather than in favour of the interests of the railwaymen of this country.

Must not the question be put to the House?

put “the previous question”—namely, that the question be now put. He declared that the Noes had it.

called for a division.

There seems to be—if I may say so—some ignorance as to what the effect of this motion will be. I take it, that if the motion that the question be now put is defeated, the whole question drops away—is practically shelved. Is that not so, sir?

That is so. I now put the amendment moved by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), that the question be now put.

The division resulted as follows :

moved the second reading of the Public Health Acts Amendment Bill. He said they were faced with a peculiar situation in South Africa. The Public Health Act in Natal expired at the end of December last. Since then they had to face the position of having one of the gravest of all diseases at their doors—the bubonic plague, and their powers of dealing with it were most inadequate. This was the reason for the urgency of the Bill. The same position might face them in other parts of the Union, where the laws dealing with the public health were also inadequate. In the Cape Province and the Free State there were laws dealing with public health, but these were not sufficiently effective in the case of epidemics, and in the Transvaal they were, perhaps, even less so. That was the reason for the great urgency which existed in dealing with these matters. There were some members in that House who were disappointed that he had not come forward with a larger and more comprehensive Bill, and he had been pressed not to go on with a partial measure, but to bring in one dealing with the matter in all its bearings. He might say the Government was not in a position at present to do this. There were enormous questions connected with public health that demanded the most careful investigation and study. There was the question of tuberculosis, smallpox, sleeping sickness, and many other epidemics. The question of tuberculosis would have to be reported upon by a Commission, and that Commission would have to do its work before the Government was in a position to bring before that House a large measure dealing comprehensively with public health. There were other reasons why they could not deal with the whole question now. In the meantime, it had become necessary for the Government to define its position in regard to this question of public health. As hon. members knew, the question had been complicated by the South Africa Act. Certain powers had been relegated to the Provincial Councils. Then in addition the local authorities had powers in regard to sanitation, and other questions affecting the public health, and the Government was anxious to bring in a measure that would cover the whole ground. Until this was done they did not want to interfere with the various Provincial Local Authorities in these matters, and hon. members would see that the Bill, short as it was, dealt with the larger issues of the question. There would be an Officer of Public Health for the whole Union. There would also be a staff of experts, who, of course, would have no administrative functions, but confine itself to the technical side of the question, leaving to the Minister of the Interior the actual administration of the public health laws. The position, he thought, was a fair one.

The question then remained, what jurisdiction ought the Government to have in relation to public bodies? Hon. members would see that in section 11 an important principle is laid down. It was a new principle, not embodied in the Health Bill of last year. The power is left to the local authorities to deal with matters already under their jurisdiction, and the Minister will not step in without there is a serious dereliction of duty on their part. So that where public health was in danger in any particular area, it would be left to the local authorities to do the work, but, of course, in the event of any neglect on their part, the Government reserves the right to call upon those authorities to carry out the necessary work, or to step in themselves and do it. The Government of the Union will only go in where serious epidemics exist. That is the only point where the Government will take matters in hand. In section 13 it is laid down that where there is an outbreak, such as bubonic plague, small-pox, or other epidemic, then the Union Government will step in at once, and not leave it to the local government to attempt to do what it was possible they would not be able to do. He thought the House would agree with him that it was in the best interest of the country that where a great-scourge is concerned, the Government should take the situation in hand. (Cheers.)

Section 15 dealt with matters relating to the various South African ports, where the regulations in regard to public health all differed. He had been apprised of this, and after the last session he called a conference of the Port Authorities together, and the result of their deliberations was embodied in the section just named. He did not think there were any other points arising out of the Bill which called for special notice. With a few additions, the Bill was the same as that dealt with last year. He hoped the House would terminate the present state of affairs, which was a danger to the public health, and pass the Bill through the House with as much expedition as possible. (Cheers.)

said that this Bill was not such a simple, short, little Bill as the Minister would have them believe. It was throughout a most drastic measure. It was a Bill that was going to wipe out self-government in public health matters. It was going to wipe out the Medical Officers of Health from the various Provinces. It was going to wipe out the Advisory Boards, in fact, it was going to constitute the Minister of the Interior the Medical Officer, the Advisory Board, and everything connected with public health. It was to be regretted that this should be done at this period of the advancement of the science of medicine, especially in public health. It was going right back to the position they were in in the Cape Colony ten years ago. It was going back to what existed in the Transvaal to-day. What was the position to-day in South Africa? They had Natal, which had its Public Health Department and its Medical Officer, who was responsible for a department to the Minister for the working of that department. They had got between the Minister of the country and the Public Health Officer the enactment of a Bill in 1903 to permit of the appointment of a Health Committee or a Health Board. That Board consisted of four nominees of the Medical Council and four nominees of the Governor-in-Council. The Medical Officer was an ex-officio member. Subsequently the Bacteriologist was made a member. They had also got the District Medical Officers. In the Orange Free State they had got a Medical Department—a Public Health Department. The Medical Officer there was directly responsible to the Minister. That Medical Officer had power to commit the Government to certain things in connection with public health. In the Cape of Good Hope they had had difficulties in regard to public health. Ten years ago their Public Health Department was no credit to this colony. But they introduced an Act ten years ago which they were working under to-day, and he thought hon. members who were constantly dealing with public health matters would own that that Act was equitable. They had the Medical Officer of Health appointed, with Assistant Medical Officers, and he wanted the Minister to note that the Medical Officer there was directly under the Minister. He had power to advise and to superintend in connection with public health matters. That was taken away under this Bill. The Minister had stated that he had, as far as possible, followed the Cape Act, but he had left out a most valuable word—that was to “superintend” the work of the department. Then, in questions between the local authorities and the department, no question of local administration could be dealt with by the Minister if the local authority desired the matter referred to the Advisory Board. This Advisory Board was the Medical Council. The Minister in tended to sweep all these Acts out of existence, and he intended to sweep away the whole Departments of Public Health in the various Provinces. He proposed to appoint a Medical Officer of Health for the Union, and with him Assistant Medical Officers and Additional Medical Officers. What was the duty of these Medical Officers? The Medical Officer of Health for the Union had only to advise the Minister when he was asked. He reported direct to the Minister. The Assistant Medical Officers of Health were not under the Chief Medical Officer. They reported direct to the Minister. So that they were going to have Additional Medical Officers of Health, Assistant Medical Officers of Health, and the Medical Officer of the Union, absolutely not working as a combined body, but all reporting to the Minister. The result would naturally be confusion. He did not think he was giving a secret away when he said there was at present confusion. All that they were going to have placed on the table of that House every year would be the report of the work done by the Chief Medical Officer and the reports of the various assistant medical officers. There was no machinery in this Bill whereby the Medical Officers of Health would be able to get to the general conditions of the health of the country. The Minister had all that. Take the Provincial Councils. They were going to be absolutely deprived of the Public Health Department. There was provision made in the Bill whereby the Assistant Medical Officers may, on the instruction of the Minister, advise the Provincial Council. Was that the way to treat the Provincial bodies? There was nothing in the Bill whereby the Minister may appoint Assistant Medical Officers of Health in the various Provinces. What was going to happen in regard to the 300 district surgeons in the country to-day who were acting as Government District Health Officers? Were they to report to the Minister direct? Then they had the treatment of local bodies outside the Provincial Council. At the present time they had got a body which came between the Minister and the Public Health Department. Under the Bill that was wiped out. They were going to appoint local epidemic committees. The Minister explained that, but not to his (Dr. Hewat’s) mind satisfactorily. They in the Cape at any rate had always been proud of the safeguards to local self government. That was entirely taken away under this measure. Then, in regard to the expenditure of these local committees, half was to be met by the local committee and half by the Government. In that case it was only fair that these local bodies should have some representation on the local committee. The time was not far distant when this country would have to do what other countries had already done, appoint a Minister with a portfolio of Public Health—a Minister who should have control of public health, although he did not say that solely. The public were realising that there must be some more attention paid to public health matters than in the days of the past, and he hoped, for these reasons, that the Minister would realise that a Public Health Department was absolutely necessary and essential. (Hear, hear.) They had serious diseases to contend with here, such as tuberculosis, syphilis, native diseases, sleeping sickness, and other diseases on their borders. According to modern ideas, disease was preventible, and it was all the more necessary to take technical advice so that diseases might be prevented. The days were past when they had to wait for a disease to break out, and then only to deal with it. Under this Bill, however, all that the Minister could do was to wait for an outbreak of disease, when his officersc could make an investigation and report to him. Disease must be prevented, and the only way to do that was to have a Health Department and a technical man at the head. He objected to clause 6, because the whole of the medical administration in the Provinces would be swept out of existence. In clause 6 they had a permissive principle, and public health was not a matter where a Minister “might” do this or “might” do that. In clauses 9 and 10 you had your medical officers working and not reporting to the Minister. In regard to the quarantine regulations, they had more autocratic powers than those of the Immigration Department, about which they had heard so many complaints, and the Minister might order the destruction of a pillow or even the whole ship without compensation. He thought that the Bill would have been better referred to a technical committee. It would have been better to withhold the Bill, and have introduced a small enabling Bill, until such time as a good measure could have been introduced. He did trust that the Minister would not force the Bill through a second reading.

said that if it were the innocent measure that the Minister of the Interior had led the House to think from his opening remarks, he did not suppose that many members on his side of the House would be disposed to take up much time in discussing it. The Minister’s appeal that they should let it through as a matter of urgency was one which was bound to fall on deaf ears, as the remedy was entirely in his own hands. There was a great deal more in the Minister’s proposals than, with that smooth tongue he had, he had led the House to think. The proposals in that Bill were going to have some very serious effects upon public health, as it had been administered by local bodies in the past and as they understood it was going to be administered under the Union Act—by some co-operation between the local bodies and the Provincial Councils The hon. gentleman picked out clause 11, which he said involved a new principle—that the Union Government was going to step in in case of urgency or when the local body was not administering public health properly, and force the local authorities as he thought fit. He believed, as the Minister had said, that it was quite true, that in the Local Government Board legislation in England, it had power to step in like that, after due inquiry. They always understood, since the Act of Union, that the Local Government Board was to be the Provincial Council and that the Administrator, according to the 85th clause of the Act of Union, had power to deal with the administration of local government, and with legislation dealing with municipal government. He wanted to point out the seriousness of clause 11 of the Bill, having regard to the Provincial Council and clause 85 of the Act of Union. It was extremely difficult to say where health matters began and where local government matters ended. The two were so intimately intertwined that it would take a very clever man who could say which was which. Practically all things except construction, which fell under the province of the municipality, had reference, more or less intimate, with the consideration of public health. The Minister by this proposal was infringing on the proper rights of the Provincial Councils. (Hear, hear.) The extremely general powers which were proposed to be given would mean that the Minister would interfere with the functions of the Administrators, and there would be chaos and friction. This clause was simply a pointer as to what would be the real policy of the Minister. The Minister wanted to concentrate all the power in his own hands and to do away with the Provincial Medical Officers of Health, and curtail the powers of the Provincial Councils. Clause 16 had reference to amendments to laws relating to public health which were in existence prior to Union. The clause stated that any law passed prior to that Bill and relating to public health should remain in force until Parliament should otherwise determine. The Cape Public Health Acts did not merely deal with public health, but with all sorts of matters concerning local government. Similarly in the Orange Free State. The clause meant the taking away of powers from the Provincial Councils and concentrating them all in the hands of the Minister of the Interior—(hear, hear)—a policy which would not make for proper contentment. In regard to such matters, which in Great Britain would fall under the Local Government Board, it would be far better that they should be left to the Provincial Councils, and not to concentrate everything in an office in Pretoria under one man, who would have to be acquainted with four different sets of laws for the four different Provinces. In conclusion, the hon. member said he had only dealt with one particular aspect of the Bill, which seemed to him was not going to improve the machinery for dealing with public health. Before the House passed the second reading of the Bill it should very carefully consider the tendencies manifested in the measure. (Cheers.)

The debate was adjourned until Friday.